On Wed, Nov 19, 2025 at 8:12 AM Martin KaFai Lau <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 11/15/25 2:55 PM, Hoyeon Lee wrote: > > > struct tuple { > > int family; > > The "family" is not needed either. Just use the ss_family from src or > dst. The 'struct tuple' can be removed also? > > I'm on the fence about whether this "struct sockaddr_storage" change is > worth the code churn. Are patch 1 and 2 the only tests that need this > change? >
Thanks for the feedback. Yes, patches 1 and 2 are the only tests that use a custom address/port representation. These are the last remaining cases, and no further changes are needed elsewhere. The code churn is fully contained within these two patches. For the “family” field, agreed. ss_family is sufficient, and the tuple wrapper can be removed. If you're okay with that direction, I can drop the family field and resend patches 1 and 2 with that cleanup applied. > Patch 3 and 4 make sense. Patch 3 and 4 are applied. > > Please post patch 5 as a separate patch on its own. > Thanks for applying patches 3 and 4. I will send patch 5 separately as requested. Thanks again for your time. > > - struct addr_port src; > > - struct addr_port dst; > > + struct sockaddr_storage src; > > + struct sockaddr_storage dst; > > }; >
